The recent violent looting of foreign-owned shops and burning of buildings and vehicles across Gauteng’s urban centres has prompted a security crackdown and mass arrests. The malicious damage to people and property has patently caused enormous distress and anger at home and abroad. But no one has noticed that the disorder could set back a vital process of central city renewal and regeneration that was under way in many of the affected areas.

The mayhem is clearly related to the national economic crisis and deepening social malaise. Rising unemployment, hardship and perceptions of government inaction and impunity for wrongdoing are fuelling discontent and undermining confidence in political leaders and the state.

Yet conditions are obviously not the same throughout South Africa. The atmosphere is particularly volatile in the densest urban districts, where a potent cocktail of social pressure, raised expectations and frustration is being stirred by opportunists and purveyors of xenophobia and racial hostility.

These complex grievances and social dynamics won’t be rectified by more forceful policing and punitive action on the part of the justice system. Stopping the violent crime and restoring law and order are imperative, but a lasting solution to the unrest requires a more profound and sustained effort to transform these crucial locations into more prosperous places and to strengthen their social assets and liveability.

The important role of local action to renew and develop the crumbling physical infrastructure and fraying social fabric has been neglected in media coverage of the turmoil, just as it was following previous outbreaks of anti-immigrant unrest. Locally-based action is in addition to, and not instead of, the national campaigns that are essential to tackle the scourges of xenophobia and gender violence.

It is no coincidence that the hot spots of strife are the epicentres of Gauteng’s cities and townships. These are rapidly-growing, well-connected places marked by intense human interaction, high aspirations and entrepreneurial dynamism. They function as powerful magnets of opportunity that attract diverse flows of domestic and international migrants searching for secure livelihoods and other ways of getting ahead. Vigorous competition for scarce resources puts extra stress on the environment and public facilities, and pressure on space to trade, to work, to live and to socialise.

Governing these unique places is inevitably complicated because of the potent activity mix, the ethnic diversity and the transient nature of some population groups. Special forums and institutional arrangements are needed to find common purpose, to channel people’s energy and goodwill in constructive directions, and to prevent the social strains and burdens from boiling over.

Local and provincial authorities have struggled to manage these shared spaces in ways that harness the positive possibilities enabled by urban density and diversity. Different functional departments operate autonomously and battle to deliver essential services and public facilities reliably, responsively and seamlessly.

Stringent compliance regimes make it difficult for officials to try out novel ideas and design creative responses to distinct local challenges and unusual situations. Disjointed government initiatives and planning exercises rarely engage communities seriously or focus on encouraging private investment by reducing risk and improving safety. And the embryonic national urban policy seems to have had little impact on the ground, where it really matters.

Despite the difficulties faced by all spheres of government in overseeing and supporting these places, research reveals that a notable turnaround has taken place in central cities in recent years. After the extensive dislocation, decentralisation and decline of the 1990s and early 2000s, people and firms have rediscovered the fundamental advantages of core urban locations over the sprawling suburbs and peripheral townships as places to live, work, play and invest.

For instance, there has been a remarkable upsurge in decent affordable housing in Johannesburg’s CBD. Pioneering private developers and black entrepreneurs have risked their capital to spur the revitalisation of key precincts through the adaptive reuse of redundant buildings and run-down public spaces for attractive rental accommodation, play areas, nurseries and other desirable amenities. This is satisfying enormous pent-up demand for city-centre living from ordinary workers, students and young professionals. Similar improvements have been happening in Tshwane and eThekwini, albeit on a smaller scale.

Another positive example of urban vibrancy is the emergence of specialised retail and wholesale enterprises engaged in cross-border trade of low-cost consumer goods. Johannesburg’s inner city accommodates thousands of such businesses, together with the providers of related hospitality, transport and logistics services in a dense ecosystem that contributes more than R10-billion a year to the local economy.¹

Meanwhile, listed developers of commercial and residential property and mainstream financial institutions have begun to return to the CBDs and other old business hubs and transport corridors. They recognise the rising demand for convenience and proximity from households and firms right across the socio-economic spectrum.²

The government needs to recognise that central cities are relatively open incubators of economic and social progress, but also cauldrons of competing interests. More focused attention is required to bolster and maintain these accessible urban centres in the face of competition from exclusionary retail and business precincts in outlying areas. Facilitating the growth and regeneration of mixed-use districts in a way that is inclusive is inherently difficult and requires a more concerted and integrated local approach. The process cannot be managed from city halls or provincial headquarters, let alone from the Union Buildings. It needs the bureaucracy to have a physical presence on the ground, in the places where citizens and businesses can access officials and articulate their needs and problems directly.

Robust and accountable local institutions are fundamental for the state to work hand-in-hand with civil society in ways that break down barriers and build social trust. Municipalities need to engage meaningfully with different groups and communities to restore confidence and to strengthen their knowledge and capabilities. Partnerships with the private sector and non-profit organisations are also vital to mobilise additional capacity to address the multiple challenges. Sustained local action may not capture the news headlines, but it is far more likely to improve people’s lives. DM

Professor Ivan Turok is executive director at the Human Sciences Research Council.